Mearls: Augmenting the core

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, presumably, all these characters are compatible in that they all interact with combat in the same way. It's not like you'd have 2e characters and 3e characters in the same fight. It's just that characters built with Advanced Combat Maneuvers module would be more powerful than characters built without it. A party of level 4 ACM characters might face the same xp budget as a party level 6 basic characters. (Of course, there could be ACM monsters who have more complicated powers that are worth more xp...)

Some modules might allow the PCs to interact with different sub-systems. For example, a kingdom management module might provide a new "silo" where each character gets new powers that are principally useful when interacting with the kingdom rules.

Other modules just add to the power of the characters. For example, you could imagine a Book of Themes (ok, I'd imagine a better name). If the group wants mechanical support for themes, then everyone gets extra powers and the effective level of the party goes up by 1.

-KS

"Queen of the Demented Hips: A module for 4|6/7 characters of levels 12-16|6-8/9-12*"

*note: not recommended to be used with the Epic Magic supplement, requires the Advanced Tactics supplement. Some errata required to play with version 1.0 of the Skills and Powers supplement.

sigh.

 

[CuRoi]

Isnt this something that has been going on for years anyway? Not saying it is a terrible idea, but how necessary is it? I've never sat down at a 1e-3.5e table and not had a DM give some sort of house rule or some way of controlling (or expanding) power levels in a game based on the individual tastes.

I run a "basic" 3.5 game where I just use the 3 core books. Anything from outside of that undergoes close scrutiny and possible adjustment for the power level of the game. Sure, I've had people actually say "you can't do that, anything from WotC is already balanced" to which I reply they may need to find a different game cause I just can't agree with them. I suppose I could even run a 3.5 game where I said Feats were out of the picture to sort of mimic earlier editions (probably need to make some serious changes to the Fighter class though...)

Anyway, I also always evaluate monsters and encounters based on the party abilities as well using things like CR as simple guidelines. It's all just part of being the DM.

So, this is basically a way to monetize house rules? Just don't really get it. I have to agree too that balancing all of these modules would be precarious at best.

Also for this (from the article)
"R&D would need to keep a close watch on those modules to stop them from proliferating"

I'll definitely believe THAT when I see it if this system comes to fruition. They'll be printing as many of these "modules" as fast they can sell them.

 

[Agamon]

Whatever said, designing adventure modules for such a system would be a pain in the butt.

Maybe they should go something like the way of SW, where you buy a setting that comes with its own set of modular rules, a plot points campaign and a bunch of adventure ideas for it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

What about this (and it might sound a tad familiar)?

You've got a set of really good, simple, playtested, balanced combat feats. They got it by ruthlessly throwing out anything that was too complicated, hard to balance, etc. This is feat module A.

Then you've got feat module B. This includes most of the stuff in A. It also includes a lot of borderline stuff that was mainly ok, but had some edge issues.

Maybe there is also feat module C. It has a different slant on the stuff in A, with some other things added to fit that slant. You'd never use it with A.

Then there is the complete book of feats, for feat module Z, including every feat available at the time it went to the printers. Tight balance goes out the window, since the whole point here is to let you pick whatever you want and handle balance issues yourself. Sure, they make some effort to get them in the ballpark, but no one even pretends it is perfect, or that there aren't some real stinkers in there.

Now, I cheated just a bit there. For this to work, "feat" and "feat module" need to be tightly defined. You need a more rigorous plan for what feats can and can't do, what they cover, how they work, etc. I think this is part where Mearls is talking about keeping a close eye on the modules. You've built the integrated design to handles feats from feat modules--and that's that. They can't do anything else. If, for example, you also had "racial ability" modules that handle all such, then feats can't modify those things.

What happens inside the tight feat constraints in the various feat modules (whether some stack or replace others), is now allowed to go rather wild--as long as you've got a handful of options that stay grounded and simple.

 

[Agamon]

What about this (and it might sound a tad familiar)?

Yeah, it reminds me of Agricola expansions with all it's X, P, Q, and all the other letters that help make Sesame Street possible.

 

[pauljathome]

I agree that this is a real down-side to this idea. It puts the barrier back up for the drop-in player who wants an easy and fair way to join into a game.

In theory, one might be able to balance it with things like bonuses to stats or even level bonuses applied to the simple character.

 

[Quickleaf]

Is this D&D Mike Mearls describes an unholy love child between Mutants & Masterminds' power levels, Savage Worlds' purchasing setting modules, and past editions of D&D?

And can he come over to our place and play?

We're running a gritty Thieves' World style game... which is shorthand for saying we are using the 'Grim and Gritty' module, the 'Council of Thieves' supplement, and the 'Its a Martial World' & 'Dark Magic' options in the core book. I suggest you pick your theme from the Council of Thieves book since those themes interact with the thieves' guild rules which will feature heavily in the game.

Sounds like a good idea to me!

 

[Gundark]

"Queen of the Demented Hips: A module for 4|6/7 characters of levels 12-16|6-8/9-12*"

*note: not recommended to be used with the Epic Magic supplement, requires the Advanced Tactics supplement. Some errata required to play with version 1.0 of the Skills and Powers supplement.

sigh.

Possibly... however Fantasy craft provides a sliding level adjustment for published adventures. The adventure is written as generic and the threats of the adventure slide VERY easily depending on the level of the party. I know this isn't a direct comparison to what Mike is talking about. But FC did a lot of "out of the box" thinking around game design which makes me think that maybe what Mike is talking about isn't so unobtainable after all.

 

[Agamon]

Possibly... however Fantasy craft provides a sliding level adjustment for published adventures. The adventure is written as generic and the threats of the adventure slide VERY easily depending on the level of the party. I know this isn't a direct comparison to what Mike is talking about. But FC did a lot of "out of the box" thinking around game design which makes me think that maybe what Mike is talking about isn't so unobtainable after all.

Way back when I was playing Living Greyhawk, the adventures all had a sliding scale to make it possible for any level group to play it. So yeah, it's possible.

 

[KidSnide]

A party of level 4 ACM characters might face the same xp budget as a party level 6 basic characters.

"Queen of the Demented Hips: A module for 4|6/7 characters of levels 12-16|6-8/9-12*"

*note: not recommended to be used with the Epic Magic supplement, requires the Advanced Tactics supplement. Some errata required to play with version 1.0 of the Skills and Powers supplement.

I can't imagine the power drift would be any different the change from 3.5 core to 3.5 with spell compendium and the magic item book. Even with the same core classes, challenging for a core-only party is totally different from challenging for an all-options party.

And that's not a criticism of 3.5. That's part of the simple fact that more options leads to a wider range of combinations, which leads to more powerful PCs. That's been true in 4e also and would be even worse if not for (1) the developers have been operating under significant constraints and (2) errata is a strong countervailing force.

In this hypothetical modular system, the designers are acknowledging upfront that new options leads to greater power and planning to provide (imperfect) guidance concerning "how much more power". Reasonable people can differ I suppose, but this strikes me as an attempt to mitigate an existing problem, not the introduction of a new problem.

-KS